Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Bourne Bond now Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Bond.
My enthusiasm for Bond is at an all time low. Does anybody else feel that the Bond that they loved and hated is passing away?
From the classic Bond of the 60's that I grew up on, through Moore's Camp Bond and on into the 1980's and even 1990's there was at first an evolution of what Bond was and then an icon.
Some people may have hated what the icon was or later became but it certainly was one that commanded attention, parody and smiles.
Bond also followed trends such as Moonraker's Star Wars nod but it still had confidence in its own 'Shaken not Stirred' identity. Bond in space remained Bond.
Increasingly for me, and I cannot fathom how more posters here do not feel this, the whole 'reboot' has been an almighty raised two fingers to the previous four decades of Bond. For the sake of a passing trend they threw everything that Bond was out with the baby and the bathwater. Both the bad and the good.
We were fed a load of marketing balderdash, in the months leading up to Casino Royale, that it was the closest thing to Fleming's Bond. Absolute rubbish. It was what is was, a marketing idea born on Batman and Bourne.
Besides, while I love the Bond books (and they do not resemble Craig's Bond in any way) they have since From Russia with Love been more and more alien for film Bond. The public never cared for Fleming's books and I wonder how many have been tempted to pick up any after watching Craig's two outings.
Bond is still part of popular culture but it is still the Bond of gadgets, martini's and white cats. But how long will this last; when will the fade begin?
Bond is dying. Bond has always been a feature of family entertaining at Easter and Christmas yet how many screenings have the last two films had before the watershed?
We have had Bourne Bond now it appears we will have Smiley's Bond and while the latter appeals more to my tastes than Bourne, it has lost its way from the confidence of not so long ago.
From the classic Bond of the 60's that I grew up on, through Moore's Camp Bond and on into the 1980's and even 1990's there was at first an evolution of what Bond was and then an icon.
Some people may have hated what the icon was or later became but it certainly was one that commanded attention, parody and smiles.
Bond also followed trends such as Moonraker's Star Wars nod but it still had confidence in its own 'Shaken not Stirred' identity. Bond in space remained Bond.
Increasingly for me, and I cannot fathom how more posters here do not feel this, the whole 'reboot' has been an almighty raised two fingers to the previous four decades of Bond. For the sake of a passing trend they threw everything that Bond was out with the baby and the bathwater. Both the bad and the good.
We were fed a load of marketing balderdash, in the months leading up to Casino Royale, that it was the closest thing to Fleming's Bond. Absolute rubbish. It was what is was, a marketing idea born on Batman and Bourne.
Besides, while I love the Bond books (and they do not resemble Craig's Bond in any way) they have since From Russia with Love been more and more alien for film Bond. The public never cared for Fleming's books and I wonder how many have been tempted to pick up any after watching Craig's two outings.
Bond is still part of popular culture but it is still the Bond of gadgets, martini's and white cats. But how long will this last; when will the fade begin?
Bond is dying. Bond has always been a feature of family entertaining at Easter and Christmas yet how many screenings have the last two films had before the watershed?
We have had Bourne Bond now it appears we will have Smiley's Bond and while the latter appeals more to my tastes than Bourne, it has lost its way from the confidence of not so long ago.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Many of us are desperate for an excellent, and recognisably 'Bond' film after the massively disappointing (for me) Quantum of Solace.
I'm very optimistic. I think Skyfall may be a belter.
I now love CR and am eager to see where the next film takes the series but I'd argue that smiling along with Bond sometimes is a very important part of why 007 has endured. He's cool under pressure and can stare death in the face in a way us everyday jo's can't. While Craig does perhaps need to lighten up a little, we've seen instances where he's displayed his cool, Bond-esque charm - namely in CR.
Nonetheless long live Roger Moore:D
I, like many, wasn't satisfied with QoS but that doesn't mean Bond is automatically dead. Also, you can't blame the producers for wanting to change the format when it gets too excessive.
"The public never cared for Fleming's books"
That's utter nonsence. Now? Maybe, but back in the day they were extremely popular.
And I'm sorry but I've read all of Fleming's novels and Dalton and Craig's performances come extremely close to the written word but that is just my opinion.
Personally I don't believe Craig is closest to Fleming (that's arguably a combination of Dalton and early Connery) BUT I still thought he was great in CR.
for some people it's not there thing and while i can understand why people might miss the jokey campy bond I don't.
[lets out sigh] Here we go again...
I am very sorry Grant but those days are not going to happen under Craig. He is a serious thriller Bond not a wisecracking mannequin. Babs and co are not very good at doing the white cat/killer satellite kind of Bond we had before ie DAD. Lewis Gilbert, Cubby, Ken Adam, Maibaum etc are long gone and not coming back.
We are going to have Tinker, tailor Bond for the next one because Bond is essentially a spy and although I think we will have a worldwide peril - it is still going to be through the prism of MI6. And what is wrong with that? And when you have got a major talent like Judi Dench, Albert Finney and Daniel Craig why not use them!
For some of us John Le Carre is the ultimate spy author. The serious Bond which you dont seem to like has always been necessary ie CR or FYEO for when the inivisible cars and space battles went too far.
The thing is "the Bond feel" is different for everybody. I suspect this time they will bring back the Aston, the vodka martinis and throw in a gadgetmaster and some fans will still moan because it isnt MR.
They tried another MR in 2002. It went horribly horribly wrong.
I am pleased with the direction that Craig and the producers are going - its adult, fresh and exciting.
Sam Mendes. Roger Deakins. Thomas Newman. Javier Bardem. Ralph Fiennes. All these people are working on the next Bond film right now.
Bond is more alive than ever.
Lewis Gilbert's still with us. He may be 90 odd but the fact that my friend chatted to him while he was waiting for a flight to Nice at Heathrow means there's still life in the old dog yet.
Get him to come back, maybe have him direct a small scene (ala Sin City style) as a 50 year tribute for SF ;)
P.s. The traditional Aston Martin has only been gone for one film.
Whats wrong with tinker Bond? They were good well crafted intelligent thrillers? Do you want to go back to MR dumbness?
I suspect we willl have a worldwide peril...but within the confines of an MI6 story. And your point that "flavour of the month" I suspect the story for SF was planned long before Tinker popped up on our screens.
Yes.
And ? Films with great cast/crews did result in duds in the past.
If this is how you feel? Why bother with the new films? Bond has been gadgets since FRWL and he cannot help what his favourite drink is? The White cat went in 1981! Just stick to them movies up until then.
However? Like all of us on here you care about the charactors as do we! Which is why you have stuck with franchise to see how it develops? But i have to take issue with the nonsense of Bond is dying? I mean come on? How many Batman reboots? Xmen reboots? Fantastic 4 reboots, Superman reboot, and now a Spiderman reboot! Bond has only been rebooted ONCE! They won't do it again! and they do not bring a villain back once he is DEAD! And they are all new adventure stories.
With the way TV is today and the choice that you have? Movies are not gonna have the appeal they would once have thanks to games consoles and the internet. And they would edit the films to pieces anyway which is why i never bother watching them on TV.
The point is that the Bond series cound't attract so many talented people during the Moore or the Brosnan years.
Carlyle ? Pryce ? Cleese ? Dench ? all pretty big actors came in during the Brosnan years.
I am wondering with the cast that has been attracted to Skyfall? What further BIG name Actors/Actresses will be tempted to sign on for a role in the future? OR? Is Mendes the key to all this?
This is why I'm not getting my hopes up for skyfall like I did for QOS, it will probably be good but theres always a chance that it'll be bad, so I'm waiting until after I've seen the film before I go on about how awesome it is.
There can be a middle ground between a DAD and a QOS. Bond can be dark and serious, while still being bond. He can still smile, crack the odd one liner and use gadgets (to an extent). I'm not saying he should drive an invisible car and joke about everything but something like the GF smoke screen in the DB5 or the TND tazer phone would be nice (Im not saying re-use them, but have gadgets like these).
The reason I like LTK the best is because its dark and serious but is still a bond film with traditional bond elements.
Im not getting my hopes up for skyfall but I've been promised a film that will feel like a 60s bond, with a goldfinger vibe. That should mean some gadgets, and some light heartedness.
That is exceedingly difficult to achieve and has only happened on a few occasions ie GF. TB, Spy, LALD, OP..
I think that is probably what they are aiming for and the Broccolis do listen to the fans but Craig isnt a louche wisecracker wandering around the world with campy lines. If you are expecting that - then maybe Skyfall isnt for you.
I'm not expecting that, I'm hoping for a 60s style bond, not a campy 70s style one. I'm not really expecting much at all actually because I've been trying not to get my hopes up for this one. Mendes and craig seem to really be aiming for that middle ground so I should enjoy it though.
I think the Broccolis are one of the few people who do listen to the fans and then inclusion of Ben Wishart as a (?) gadgetmaster may be a step in the right direction for you. I have never been one for the accoutrements myself - just give me a good Bond and story set somewhere interesting. I loved QoS but I understand other people didnt.
They may reboot Q and Moneypenny for the 21st century but one thing is clear, and he has said it himslef, you are not going to get another MR under Craig.
Well reading down the thread, this has been a very interesting discussion. To me, it always seems to be finding the middle ground...not too serious and not too silly (for most Bond fans, this seems to be 'golden spot'). I'm a huge fan of CR; I think they held the humor (humour) in good regard and kept the film grounded and serious. I believe that is why CR works overall because of the magnificent tone they were able to achieve.
Quantum of Solace was dour, however. There was just about zero fun, not only in the script, but in the action as well. I remember myself and the audience laughing with CR throughout the film and having a good time...every time I saw QOS, the only time people (including myself) really chuckled was at that 'handcuff' line. Apart from that, we sat in silence. There just was no escapism in QOS, nothing to be awed at. Perhaps it was too low key, too tame and too conservative for the time. Maybe if a QOS type film (ie. no humor or wit or much else) came out after DAD, people would have liked it more? Still, Quantum's tone was just a single problem out of a collection.
I like what I am hearing from Mendes and the gang. They seem to be going back to the slick-ness of the Connery days (or at least that is what they're alluding to). If you want another MR type adventure, you may have to wait another 20-30 years when times are different and the world is a little more laid back. Times were different in the 70s, I suppose, which is why the Bond films of that era were wholly flippant regarding just about everything. I personally don't care too much for that. Perhaps if I'd grown up with those films I'd carry a different opinion, but I 'came of age' during the Craig era. Maybe that's why I hold him in such high regard as the James Bond character.
Finally, what's with this Tinkor Tailor thing? Are they really going to change Bond films into slow moving, subtle films? I honestly don't believe that